School Taxes what do you pay ?

[bubba]

I Also think that the Amish do not pay school taxes, but not 100 percent sure on this

Yes they do. I was in paying my school tax the other day, and there was an amish ahead of me paying his. It is based on supposedly ownig property, not what your religious beliefs are. BTW with my home, camp on the river and 550 acres of farm/hunting land, my taxes are just under 11 grand a year.  I smile every time I write a check. 

[burmjohn]

Doc, Which more then likely would be illegal.  If its been subdivided to have more then one rental then it would need to qualify as a 2 family house.  Not sure how they do the taxes by you, but here, its taxed by essentially # of family.

[nyslowhand]

Doc- you've given two seperate situations, which one do you think is skating on their taxes?

The renters with school age children or the owners of rental properties due to assessment inequity?

I pay school taxes and have never had children in this school district.

I pay school taxes on a vacant piece of land.

Obligated to pay for both and I do.

[Doc]

Doc, Which more then likely would be illegal.  If its been subdivided to have more then one rental then it would need to qualify as a 2 family house.  Not sure how they do the taxes by you, but here, its taxed by essentially # of family.

No we are taxed according to the assessed valuation of the deeded property regardless of use. The only alternatives to that that I am aware of is farm land in agricultural districts and there they alter the rate per $1000 of assessment.

[burmjohn]

Hrmm... Odd, then if thats the case, its assessed incorrectly, because a 2 fam house is worth more. 

[Doc]

Doc- you've given two seperate situations, which one do you think is skating on their taxes?

The renters with school age children or the owners of rental properties due to assessment inequity?

I pay school taxes and have never had children in this school district.

I pay school taxes on a vacant piece of land.

Obligated to pay for both and I do.

The Owner pays his taxes according to his assessment just like everyone else. I'm assuming he proportions that tax bill between the two families. So each of the families are only paying 1/2 of the tax owed on the property while my one family is paying 100% of the taxes owed on a similar property even though they each are using the same services that I do (and more).

[burmjohn]

Is it legally subdivided though? I mean is it legal to rent to 2 families in your area?

[Doc]

Hrmm... Odd, then if thats the case, its assessed incorrectly, because a 2 fam house is worth more.

You're probably right in that the interior facilities have to be duplicated for each family. I'm not familiar with what the interior furnishings are like, but I am sure that even with the additional fixtures and utilities, The assessment would never be twice what mine is. And, in fact rightly or wrongly the assessment is nearly the same as mine and yet there are two families residing there theoretically using government and educational services at twice the rate that I am but only paying half of what I am paying in tax money.

In my opinion, those services just like any government services should be funded through income taxes. In that way the bill is sized according to your real ability to pay. I personally know of several people who happen to own land and are constantly scrambling to keep from losing it to tax forclosures because the fact that they own property has nothing to do with their financial state. They are people who accumulated property throughout their lives, but then retired to a fixed income only to be so unfortunate as to have lived far longer than their retirement incomes could accomodate as time and inflation has hacked away at their income. Taxes continue to rise as everything does and puts them in the position of risking the loss of their homes at a time in their lives when they are incapable of recovering. If we were on a system that relied strictly on income to determine tax burden, these people would be in a much better position to live out their lives without the constant threat of forclosure.

By the way, there is another benefit to having everything based on income taxes. Once every year we would be getting that one huge tax bill all rolled up into one document and it would serve as giant reminder of just what ALL of our tax burden looks like ..... all at one time. That might just be a sobering realization to voters that might propel them to actually try to do something to control the various levels of tax and spend local, state and federal governments.

Well anyway, that's my rant for tonite. Certainly the system will never change. But it is something worth thinking about once in a while.

Note: relative to your follow-up question about the legality of subdividing a house for rental units, the answer is yes, it is done all the time. In fact our old house where I grew up was a big old 13 room farmhouse which the new owners subdivided into 5 apartment units. I don't think that even involved a zoning variance. So yes it's a perfectly legal thing to do.

Doc

[WNYBuckHunter]

Doc, you need to look up the facts, a multi family residence is assessed at a different rate. Regardless, the notion that renters "skate by" and have any advantage over someone that rents is just plain silly. If you call never owning equity in something an advantage, just because you are not directly paying taxes, then youre right. Why dont you rent by the way?

Oh and your income tax based system can never work out, you may want to do some reading on the fair tax plan. Its the real answer to our nation's financial woes. Letting the retired individuals that have run through their retirement get by without paying taxes makes no sense.

[bubba]

oh wny you have done it now. Having a different opinion from the great and powerful doc is dangerous.

[burmjohn]

Don't forget about all the illegals, ones who only rent, that do not pay income taxes either.  Regarding the muti-family, in most counties its 100% illegal to do so with out having that house classified as a 2,3 or more family house so you are properly assessed.  My house is classified as a 2 fam house because the previous owner was a slum lord, and I am in the process of trying to correct it.  However, since 2 fam houses where I live a rarely approved, I am actually considering aborting the process.  Why? because it makes my house more marketable and valuable if I choose to sell it.  I'm not sure how long I'll stay where I am, so thats why I am on the fence. If I choose to live here long term I'll have it converted back to a 1 fam so my taxes are reduced.  I grieve and fight my taxes every year as well, which has helped and reduced my taxes successfully by more then 1/3.

[First-light]

If there wasn't any renters there would be no landlords. I have a few friends that rent and make a nice penny on the deal. The landlords pay the rent and the renters pay the landlord. The landlord is making a profit so the landlord pays the taxes. I live on Long Island and there are so many illegal apartments and illegal's using the school district. But who's to blame, it's capitalism. We only bitch because we're not in on it.

[burmjohn]

Landloarding is great until you have someone that doesnt pay.  Then all of a sudden they have more rights then the owner of the house.  Regardless, illegal renting is a huge problem that needs to be addressed.

[First-light]

Absolutely.

[Doc]

Doc, you need to look up the facts, a multi family residence is assessed at a different rate. Regardless, the notion that renters "skate by" and have any advantage over someone that rents is just plain silly. If you call never owning equity in something an advantage, just because you are not directly paying taxes, then youre right. Why dont you rent by the way?

Oh and your income tax based system can never work out, you may want to do some reading on the fair tax plan. Its the real answer to our nation's financial woes. Letting the retired individuals that have run through their retirement get by without paying taxes makes no sense.

You are trying to change the subject away from taxation again. I never said that renting is a good financial choice. We started out talking property tax. I am still talking property tax. I don't know where you are trying to steer the conversation, but I keep trying to keep it on point.

I think I already said that it is likely because of the additional equipment and fixtures required internally that there would be more value and therefore a partially higher assessment on multi-family buildings. Other than that, assessments are reflective of residence value. In other words, assessments represent the theoretical market value of the property . I think if you go down to your town hall and check, you will rarely (probably never) find a rental property that truly reflects the number of families (assessments are all public info) when compared to single family residences. In other words, you will not find that two family dwelling is automatically assessed or taxed at twice the rate as a comparable single family residence. That means that residents of the multi-family buildings are not paying as much taxes as a single house owner. Am I not being clear on all this because a lot of what I am explaining is repeated from a prior post.

I hope I am not stepping on anybody's feelings here because I realize that a lot of members are probably renters. That's certainly not my intent. This line of conversation is not meant as a personal slam toward anyone simply because they rent. I'm simply explaining an inequity in taxation that I believe could be remedied.

I know that back when property tax was imposed, the assumption and probably the reality was that the landed people were the ones that represented the monied people and therefore it was decided that they were the ones in the best position to pay for public services. Unfortunately that is not the case anymore, and there is no correlation between home ownership and wealth as I pointed out before. In fact I know and, know of, some very wealthy people who have chosen the rental route for various reasons. Unfortunately, the philosophy for taxation never was updated to reflect the realities of today.

Oh, by the way I just spotted a question where you asked why I don't rent. There are several reasons. The actual reason has nothing to do with finances. I simply enjoy privacy and elbow room. Actually there is one financial reason. The place is payed for and other than maintenance which is considerable, and of course the taxes, our housing is paid for. There is some question I suppose whether all that really is a financial advantage over renting when you add up the normal annual maintenance of the property and the equipment to do so, as well as the occasional major repairs and replacements that come along with a set of buildings that are now over 40 years old. Frankly, I never have gone through the analysis. The fact is that I could probably put the equity from selling the house into the markets and pay off rents for quite a few years as well as dispense with all the maintenance issues. It's quite possible that I might discover that renting might be a prudent financial choice if only I could stand to be all that close to neighbors. Which I can't. ;D  I can hardly imagine it, but you never know. Perhaps the taxes will drive me out of my house too.

Doc

[WNYBuckHunter]

Doc Im just replying back to the notion that renters have some kind of advantage over owners, thats all. Sice you brought it into the discussion, I figured it was fair game. 

Im not trying to start any argument here, just throwing my 2 cents in.

[wztirem]

The problem where I live, is that landlords have built illegal apartments (sometimes more than one) in residences that are zoned for only single family usage. The landlord pays taxes on the assessed value of the single family residence only and  does not report the income from the illegal apartments.

Many of such renters in the illegal apartments have children in the Public schools. The cost to educate these children is born by landlords in each particular district. Homeowners who have homes which are legal pay a diproportinate tax.

In addition, consider the cost for additional sewer and sanitation services.

The point is, the system is broken and needs to be fixed so that it is equitable to all.

[HectorBuckBuster]

Ok, I just looked up some info and I was wrong about the Amish. I did find out where they do pay school taxes. I not sure how some of those Amish people can afford to own all that land and pay the kind of taxes. It looks like the average Amish familys farm is around 60 - 100 acre farms, and their taxes run between $6000 - $10,000 a year. So you looks at it this way, their kids don't even goto the local school, and these familys are paying for it still.

[bubba]

those amish people have more money that you and I do, well at least more than I do. Think about it no power bill every month no cable bill no phone bill no car payment no insurance payment.  Add all that up every month and see what anyone would have.   

[Landowner]

We pay around $6,000 Orange County. 48 acres House 2 barns. I plan on filling the freezer with the fruits of my labor. How do I get ag assessed? Would this save me some $$? I have some feild I can plant Sweet Corn and Pumkins in, would this do it?

[WNYBuckHunter]

Im pretty sure you need a certain percentage of you land to be actively farmed, plus the zoning has to be right. You could lease some fields to local farmers, that would put money in your pocket and possibly cut your tax liability. You would have to check with your local zoning and tax board to make sure. Go talk to the town clerk, they will know who to talk to.

[HectorBuckBuster]

To get Ag Assessed you need $10,000 worth of farm income in one year, or you need to have the land farmed for atleast 3 years I believe, then you have to have a 5 year lease with a farmer. You can also fence it and make a pasture and get horses, and get ag assessed. Why do you think you see the huge houses with land, then get horses.

[Guest Raykirk]

Im pretty sure you need a certain percentage of you land to be actively farmed, plus the zoning has to be right. You could lease some fields to local farmers, that would put money in your pocket and possibly cut your tax liability. You would have to check with your local zoning and tax board to make sure. Go talk to the town clerk, they will know who to talk to.

I definitely agree with you my friend, just like what I did before. In the first place, I don't know the percentage of my land. The best thing that I can do is to go to town clerk for more inquiries.

[gundeck]

Doc, I guess I don't your point.  You talk about multiple families, but what if I have one house that has two families (say, seven people total) and another house that has one family with eight people.  What is the difference (except that the renters don't have any equity in the house)?  Until about five years ago, I rented my entire life as I was in the Navy and moved frequently.  I paid more in rent than my neighbors were paying for mortgages, so someone was getting my money.

As for an income based system, don't we have that already?  I pay an awful lot of money for Medicaid, social security, WIC, welfare, food stamps, public sector retirements, bank bailouts, unemployment, etc. and I currently get no benefit from any of these.

I would certainly be in favor of a higher sales tax over income tax.  That would tax people based on what they purchase, not on what they make.  That way people who don't work and purchase flat screen TVs , game systems and $150 sneakers are paying the same tax for those items as I am.  If you don't have money, you won't buy these things and no tax.

[Doewhacker]

"I would certainly be in favor of a higher sales tax over income tax.  That would tax people based on what they purchase, not on what they make.  That way people who don't work and purchase flat screen TVs , game systems and $150 sneakers are paying the same tax for those items as I am.  If you don't have money, you won't buy these things and no tax."

So the solution to high taxes is to create a different type of tax system? I understand your rationale but wouldn't it make waaayyy more sense if they just controled the damn spending to begin with. NY is the highest taxed state in the nation and the boobs in control still can't curb spending long enough to get a balanced, fair budget in on time. Our dysfuntional government is causing fellow NY'ers to leave NY at the highest rate ever and we also have that title too..way to go politicians, people are packing up and leaving while you wring you hands on pay day. My foot is wedged in the door to leave, but just one foot so far.